Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Doctrine:
Ponente: JARDELEZA, J.
Facts:
Roberto Ponce Lepon was the Manager in charge of Cebu operations and the
Director of the Visayas-Mindanao operations of Punongbayan & Araullo (a
professional accounting firm). In April 2002, there were negotiations of
possible merger between SGV and P&A. Lepon and some P&A employees
expressed their disapproval. Subsequently, P&A learned that Lepon (1) met
with P&A's clients and invited them to engage the services of Laya
Mananghaya-KPMG (LM-KPMG), a competing accounting firm, and (2)
attempted to pirate the entire staff of P&A's Cebu City Office and Davao City
Office.
P&A sent Lepon a letter requiring explanation and the respondent replied,
denying the allegations. In June 2002, Lepon was terminated on the ground
of loss of trust and confidence. On June 14, 2002, respondent filed a
complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal, and for payment of
13th month pay, service incentive leave, allowances, separation pay,
retirement benefits, moral damages, and exemplary damages against P&A
and its partners with the Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Cebu City.
Labor Arbiter dismissed the petition for lack of merit, which was affirmed by
the NLRC. The Court of Appeals found the petition meritorious. It reviewed
the factual findings of the NLRC, and it ruled that petitioners illegally
suspended and dismissed respondent from employment. It further ruled that
the responded was denied due process.
Issues:
1. Whether the factual findings of both the NLRC and the Labor
Arbiter were supported by substantial evidence;
2. Whether respondent was deprived of his right to due process;
and
3. Whether the petitioners are jointly and severally liable with
P&A to pay the judgment award.
Held:
I. The factual findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter were
supported by substantial evidence.
In Bristol Myers Squibb (Phils.), Inc. v. Baban, this Court explained that the
following requisites must be satisfied to justify a valid dismissal based on
loss of trust and confidence, to wit:
(2) There must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and
confidence.
These two requisites are present in this case.
Case Doctrine:
The Court is not unmindful of the rule in labor cases that the employer has
the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized
cause. However, it is likewise incumbent upon the employees that they
should first establish by competent evidence the fact of their dismissal from
employment. As an allegation is not evidence, it is elementary that a party
alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence.
It was also stressed that the evidence to prove the fact of dismissal must be
clear, positive and convincing.
Ponente: PERALTA, J.
Facts:
Respondents Nolasco Matuto, Romeo E. Magno and Elvira B. Lavia were
hired by petitioner Tri-C General Services as janitors/janitress assigned at
the PLDT Business Office in Calamba City. They alleged that in Nov. 3, 2004,
Matuto and Lavia were barred from their workplace while Magno was
denied entry in Nov. 26, 2004. Consequently, they filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal against petitioner.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC). It found that respondents were illegally
dismissed and ordered their reinstatement with full backwages from the date
of dismissal and awarded attorneys fees.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the
respondents were constructively dismissed.
Ruling:
Moreover, the rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal
dismissal cases finds no application in a case, like the present petition,
where the employer denied having dismissed the employees. Petitioner
alleged that the CA erred in ruling that respondents were entitled to
reinstatement, payment of backwages and other monetary benefits.
Petitioner believed that respondents are not entitled to the awards since they
were not illegally dismissed. Under Article 279 of the Labor Code and as
settled in jurisprudence, an employee who is dismissed without just cause
and without due process is entitled to backwages and reinstatement or
payment of separation pay in lieu thereof. While we agree with the rulings of
the LA and the NLRC that respondents were not illegally dismissed and not
guilty of abandonment, we do not agree with their decisions to dismiss the
case for lack of merit. Instead, we find that respondents are entitled to
reinstatement without payment of backwages and other monetary benefits.
Anent the issue on the award of attorneys fees, Article 111 of the Labor
Code provides that in cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable
party may be assessed attorneys fees, equivalent to ten percent (10%) of
the amount of wages recovered. Likewise, we have recognized that in
actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate
and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interest, the award of
attorneys fees is legally and morally justifiable. We have similarly so ruled
in RTG Construction, Inc., et at. v. Facto[13] in which we specifically stated:
In the present case, however, it was settled that respondents were not
illegally dismissed from employment and their wages were not withheld
without valid and legal basis. There/fore, they are not entitled to receive
attorneys fees.